@faraday I am not disagreeing with that? Game Runners should absolutely set boundaries and what should and should not be possible.
What i object to is the idea that you remove them entirely because people don't wanna 'lose agency' or whatever.
Only if you take away the ability of people to use physical stats on other PCs as well.
I'm a rodeo clown.
Unfortunately, whether we get rid of social stats or not, there will always be people that refuse to have their characters be intimidated, manipulated, or otherwise have some agency removed therefrom. The idea that players have exclusive and supreme agency over their characters is something that many people take to an extreme, so any eventuality that would cause them to feel a loss of agency will end poorly.
He/Him
@tinuviel Let people retain agency, and let that have consequences. Give them options on how to react besides full acquiescence and shrugging it off? I know it's easier said than done, but there's all kinds of options, conditions, etc, that could be used.
@tragedyjones said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:
Only if you take away the ability of people to use physical stats on other PCs as well.
Except the understanding and expectations of what physical stats do to other characters is very well-detailed.
The understanding and expectations of what social or mental stats do to other characters is not.
Unless you're using literally any incarnation of Fate.
Obviously this means that everyone should be using Fate.
There are some other RPGs where the stakes and rules for social combat are clear. If you want to use social stats with characters as a valid target, use one of them.
--
Mind you, I've been stating this since nWoD came out (2004, jesus): The book already instructs players how to negotiate these skills, they just don't want to.
With almost every game's combat system, there is no response other than to engage the scripted combat system. But with no scripted social system, you have to rely on the target to be reasonable, and Prisoner's Dilemma takes full effect; it only works if both of you are willing to negotiate loss. No matter how many examples are given for how to negotiate, people will tend to...simply not.
So in situations where PCs may be playing adversarial roles to other PCs, either burn the stats with fire, or put them on completely equal footing with the physical stats.
“If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
@peasoupling said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:
@tinuviel Let people retain agency, and let that have consequences. Give them options on how to react besides full acquiescence and shrugging it off? I know it's easier said than done, but there's all kinds of options, conditions, etc, that could be used.
Well, when used 'properly' social rolls don't so much remove agency as they impose restrictions on that agency. Conditions and such could be used, of course, if one happens to be playing a more recent iteration of the system.
Players, in general, don't like to lose. Failing to succeed in exactly what you want to do is seen as losing, whether that's true or not. Too many people associate their character's success with their own success as a player, so regardless of how much conversation, negotiation, or whatever else some people just simply won't accept that Donnie the Daeva did just intimidate the shit out of Garry Ghoul.
Also wanna note that we seem to be focusing on persuasion and Intimidation.
Will this 'PC's are Immune to social rolls Include...
Empathy rolls to get better insight, Subterfuge rolls to shield emotions or pick up on lies, or Expression to be a dramatic bitch.
These are ALL social dice pools.
@wretched But lying of any kind is bad! Omg how could you even suggest such a thing?!
@thenomain Chronicles of Darkness has a system that is able to work on PCs just fine, and even has a reward for Going Along AND the ability to say "no, but".
If you can beat a dude to death, you should be able to trick them.
But then, I am also much more invested in Tabletop these days.
I'm with @wretched and @tragedyjones . But I have been for a long time, too.
I don't always agree with Wretched, but in this case I do. I already dislike that social stuff is hamstringed by agency arguments, removing it explicitly just gives people a warrant to be combat monsters.
And I already have an ancient thread about why Doors should be a thing for PCs, as TJ says.
I can elaborate on any of these points but simply
1.) Most players don't use social skills against each other anyways
2.) If you let players lie to each other without rolling Subterfuge and allowing the other player to attempt to detect that lie using Wits+Empathy or Manipulation+Subterfuge, you're gonna have fuckin' problems, my guy, idk how you eliminate the mechanics around lying on a game like a MU??
3.) Players that invest in social powers like Majesty or Vainglory can't bring those to bear against other PCs when they come into conflict, meaning they aren't competitive with PCs that are physically focused or mentally focused. I don't know how much conflict you anticipate their being between PCs, but that sort of thing crops up and can create fun RP. Vigor becomes a better investment, because it applies evenly against everything, but Majesty or Vainglory is less useful; you can't manipulate the Harpy into giving you praise, make an impression at the big social function, or make the Primogen divulge all of their filthy secrets. You might be able to do those things without making any rolls, but... that means other players will have to willingly CHOOSE to let you have those kinds of successes, and in my experience (as stated here) players don't like to lose. Even when you make successful social rolls against folks, they will sometimes refuse to play along anyways. So without rules or rolls, I don't see those kinds of manipulations being successful ever. But I think the Vigor 5/Resilience 5/Celerity 5 Gangrel will still be able to get other PCs to cooperate, simply by virtue of being able to directly trash them in a direct conflict.
ETA: last point ended up being elaborate anyways yw
@ziggurat said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:
Most players don't use social skills against each other anyways
Source?
My social group in MUing is pretty small these days, but we roll social stuff all the time. Mostly because we're all a bunch of terrible people who lie constantly. heck i even got a subterfuge spec for dealing with two specific people because it was such a web of lies and manipulations. I've used social dice for 'taking off my shirt deliberately sexily' and gotten an exceptional success, and the response was 'subtle checking out and side eyeing' and not 'forced into humping'. But I mean there's a level of trust and OOC mocking our own PCs and cackling at the terrible misfortunes. Which isnt there when strangers are involved.
Just my experience. It's very common for folks to make dramatic speeches, or impassioned admonitions, trying to convince other PCs of their position or steer them to a certain course of action, but not roll Persuasion, or Socialize. This happens at meetings and at social functions and even in scenes just between two PCs. It's pretty common for folks to make threats or prod with questions without rolling either. I generally don't have an issue with these sorts of things, RP is RP, after all.
But it can be frustrating, too, and sometimes ends up feeling like a drag.
If Steve makes a badass, dramatic speech, full of rich rhetoric and frightening analogies in order to convince Gwen that they should go along with his plan to deal with the rival gang, and do things the way he wants to... only for Gwen to give an equally dramatic speech about why they should go with HER plan, but one that isn't nearly as convincing, doesn't really acknowledge his points, and just sort of undercuts what he says with its defiance without actually holding a candle to it in terms of articulation or reasoning... that can be lame. Realistically, Gwen would realize that Steve is right and play ball. But Gwen's player, even if she doesn't have the chops IC or OOC to argue with him, doesn't want to lose, and she wants to get the last word. So then you get nine poses back and forth of Steve nailing her verbally, making his point very clearly, and RPing well, while she is just obstinate but posturing as though she's got the same level of righteousness and maybe even thinking OOC that what she has to say is just as valid. Eventually Steve just gives up and fucks off.
If you've seen Breaking Bad, you might recall the infamous scene where Walter White says that HE is the danger, HE is the 'one who knocks'. Imagine if, in that scene, his wife wasn't frightened and appalled. If instead, she smirked and lit a cigarette, and delivered a soliloquy of her own, but it was not really relevant or capable of refuting what he said. So he gives another speech. Then she does. Finally, Walter's given no fewer than 7 badass declarations that give you goosebumps to hear, and his wife just smirks again, quips, and leaves. I know you've experienced or witnessed a scenario like this on a WoD MU.
Some RPers don't like to lose, don't even like to appear vulnerable or shaken IC, or to be convinced of something by someone they dislike and only want to come to their own conclusions ICly. When you dispense with using social skills to negotiate these discussions, they are able to indulge themselves in this way, which is empowering to them as players at the expense of what I'd consider a logical or consistent story. That's an issue of collaborative storytelling, sure, a feature far more than a bug. But why create more latitude for that kind of behavior? Doesn't compute, for me, personally. All of that said, so long as everyone in a scene is more interested in telling a good story and playing their characters accurately than 'winning' or giving themselves badass clout tokens, you don't run into these kinds of awkward scenarios. Unless you have other ways to incentivize that sort of good faith RP, though, I think eliminating social rolls altogether is of more benefit to folks that like to be obstinate than players that want to collaborate.
@ganymede said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:
@apos said in Social Stats in the World of Darkness:
I don't know if it's the right question. I think a better one is to ask if you want PCs to have complete control to be able to attack/kill/do whatever to other PCs, regardless of the kind of attack, whether physical, social, whatever. I think if the answer is yes, then you don't need to really restrict social skills that remove agency. If the answer is no, then I think you remove them.
I think this is a red-herring question, but I'm pretty sure that no one wants PCs to have that kind of complete control. And I know of no game that permits PCs that kind of control.
Example: I know of no game that would allow a player to use his PC to threaten another player's PC with death if they did not engage in TS.
Probably not no, but I'm not so sure a lot of games would block people from PKing over a slight, or picking a fight for trivial reasons. I think unrestricted PVP is pretty rare now in MUs to avoid them becoming dumpster fires, but trying to police what's reasonable or not has its own set of issues in trying to avoid favoritism pitfalls when staff becomes the final arbiters of any kind of PVP conflict. So I think wanting to remove social combat is more secondary to trying to codify what's reasonable in trying to remove other PC's agency, and coming up with something that's consistently enforced and intuitive. I really just think that if an environment allows people to be bullied then the game's going to go toxic really fast, so for me it's less 'should social combat be banned' and more, 'what conflicts systems do I have that allows for people to get bullied without risk or consequences'.
"Who are you talking to right now? Who is it you think you see?"
Walt rises from the bed, standing to look down at Skler as he continues his speach.
"Do you know how much I make a year? I mean, even if I told you, you wouldn't believe it. Do you know what would happen if I suddenly decided to stop going into work? A business big enough that it could be listed on the NASDAQ goes belly up."
He waives his right hand outward in emphasis at this point. "Disappears! It ceases to exist without me." His voice grows more intense and impassioned as he gestures towards himself. His voice is a gravelly cold sound coming from a face contorting with a mixture of rage and pride.
"No, you clearly don't know who you're talking to, so let me clue you in. I am not in danger, Skyler. I am the danger." A guy opens his door and gets shot and you think that of me? No. I am the one who knocks!
--
Skyler over at Walt on the end of the bed. "So we're going to call the cops right?"
I'm a rodeo clown.
@tragedyjones Literally giving me flashbacks to scenes I've been in lmfao
@tragedyjones :smirks at you and takes a drag of his cigarette.
I think if used as intended, social skills do add a lot of fun to the game. They are very useful in gmed scenes where the runner is willing to allow them to be used (rather than just combat for everything). They can be used to reclaim player agency as well by the non-combat PC (when someone wants to kill/attack them which will remove them from play, they can mitigate some of that by talking the person down, making it just a beating instead of the PK.) Since presumably the PC doesn't want to die/be forced physically into that box/ect.)
In order to support social skills to their fullest potential though I think its probably important to use them as intended--mostly on NPCs or against organizations not individuals (I think combat skills should be limited mostly to NPCs too.)
Eliminating personal PVP solves a lot of the problems.
As someone who has always played socially oriented characters, removing 'social combat' from a game would really bum me out. Let me lie to you! Let me manipulate you! Let me persuade you into doing something wildly stupid!
I am talking pure social skills -- nothing powered for the sake of this argument. Even if I roll wildly successful, at the end of the day? One is still only going to go as far as makes sense for their character's IC limits/knowledge base. Even if I roll 20+ successes on a subterfuge roll, I have little chance of convincing anyone that it is night when we are hanging out under the noon day sun. Even if I roll a bazillion successes on a persuasion roll, I'm not going to convince a goody-two shoes to go on a cannibalistic murder spree if that crack doesn't already exist somewhere deep down. Like @Wretched said: social skills are not magic. But when supported by RP and used with collaborative players, it can be really fun.
It can get me out of jam.
It can turn a dull night fun.
It can coax out bits of information.
Sure. Social skills can be abused. But so can physical skills. So can mental skills. It's on staff to set the rules as to what is acceptable and what isn't; it is on the players to operate within those guidelines and to speak up when someone tries to push past the boundaries into abuse.
@faraday I am not disagreeing with that? Game Runners should absolutely set boundaries and what should and should not be possible.
What i object to is the idea that you remove them entirely because people don't wanna 'lose agency' or whatever.
